Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius chochlearius chick.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 02:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Well, your prerrogative to oppose, but nature shots are a bit different than tourist attaction pictures that we see often around here. I challenge you to find more intimate pictures of boat billed heron chicks, and you can start here #REDIRECT[[1]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some nature shots one has to maintain a distance that minimizes the stress that humans cause on wildlife. Chick pictures are extremely stressful on the mothers and I choose close enough for good enough and fast enough in order to dissapear from their life and still come out with something that is illustrative of their environment. Once one gets this close, for spotting the nests in thick mangroves is much more challenging than taking the picture itself, one could really come inches away from the nests and really be on top and take that great shot up close, but paradoxically, one would miss out of the "disturbing" elements that give an idea of how the birds hide their nests, not differentiating the wild picture from the zoo picture. In any case, I choose the least intrusive shot. Closer is not necessarily better. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per LivioAndronico. These leafs are really disturbing. It was done not in a correct angle. Maybe you have any other versions? -- Pofka (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I really don´t want to lecture but.... Photography Evaluation depends on many criteria, such as technical aspects, content, relevance, ethics, etc. One does not evaluate all photographs the same way. For example, you do not apply still photography criteria to sports or nature photography. There may be some overlaping criteria, such as exposure, composition, etc., but their uniqueness within a certain class of photography demands variable criteria. In this particular case, as far as the "distracting elements," they need to be addressed in order to properly determine the overall quality of the photograph. Mangroves have very thick foilage at the top and at the edges and visibility in these parts is next to nothing, depending on where you are with respect to the edge of the mangrove, visibility is next to nothing. In this image, for example, we can get a little bit of scale and an idea of visibility at the outer side of the mangrove #REDIRECT[[2]] you cannot see through on the left part of the image, and that particular outcropping of vegetation could not have been more than a yard and a hal thick. Once you get inside the canopy, visibility improves a a little, but still there is visual caos because of reflections and vegetation. See here #REDIRECT[[3]]. The thickest parts are on the canopy or the edges, and because of the cover they offer, that is where birds nest. In this picture #REDIRECT[[4]] we can appreciate that the nest is well hidden behind leaves and branches, and although we can see the bird, the nest is hidden from view. What I do when I spot a nest, is to look for view tunnels in the brush from where I can look into the nest without cutting a single branch, so obstructing branches are inevitable, like here, for example #REDIRECT[[5]]. The view tunnels are very narrow. I could actually reach the nest and touch the chicks if I wanted, but that would be a very disturbing intrusion, for the birds stress out a lot with human presence, so I maintain my distance. So the merit of this photograph resides not only on the technical quality such as exposure, composition and focus, but on the fact that is of a wildlife subject, in its undisturbed environment. It is not only the picture of a chick, but also of its environment. They go together. From the ethical point of view, the disturbing is also a consideration. Even getting to the distance from where I shoot can be questionable. Some well respected bird watching organizations for example, do not publish photographs of nests or chicks because of this unwelcome intrusion. I deal with that intrusion by maintaining a distance and not touching the surrounding vegetation, and getting out of there as soon as possible. In short, in mangroves, imposible to have clear views, however, the mangrove is part of the show... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose All the same, I don't see any wow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question @ Daniel Case, What is wow? A prolific contributor like you #[[6]] surely has better arguments. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Subject has very big wow of course, but at prewiew composition have not and the blurred leave in foreground right is disturbing. At full resolution the light on the bird is not the best. Valuable image, wow subject but no wow result despite the difficulty of making this kind of nature picture. -- Christian Ferrer 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like the little bird, of course, but the picture has too many blurred areas. I'm not talking about the right part that doesn't disturb me so much, but more about the lower part of the foreground. The bird itself is lovely. --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cochlearius_chochlearius_chick.jpg&oldid=164247734"